GR 110088; (February, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995
DR. MERLE A. ALONZO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JUDGE DAN VELASCO, and DR. ANGELES VELASCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dr. Merle A. Alonzo, as Field Operations Officer of the Philippine Medical Care Commission (PMCC) for Region XI, inspected two Medicare-accredited clinics owned by Dr. Angeles Velasco, wife of Judge Dan Velasco. Pursuant to her duty, she submitted a report to PMCC Vice-Chairman Dr. Jesus Tamesis detailing violations found at the clinics. The report included the statements: “the husband is a judge and it gives them a certain amount of ‘untouchability’. In fact, they make court suits their pasttime.” Based on this report, a PMCC complaint was filed against the clinic. Dr. Velasco received the complaint with the attached report. She and her husband filed a libel case against Dr. Alonzo. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dr. Alonzo of two counts of libel, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA held the report was a qualified privileged communication but the privilege was lost due to actual malice, finding the derogatory remarks were made out of ill-will based on a rumored libel threat.
ISSUE
Whether the questioned report of the petitioner to Dr. Tamesis is libelous.
RULING
No, the report is not libelous. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Dr. Alonzo. The Court held: (1) The imputations in the report were not malicious. The statements regarding “untouchability” and “court suits” were relevant to the official report, made in the performance of a duty, and intended to inform the PMCC of potential difficulties in pursuing action against the clinic due to the owner’s connection to a judge. No proof of personal ill-will or spite was established. (2) There was no publication in law. A communication made by a public officer in the discharge of official duties to another officer having a duty regarding the subject matter does not constitute publication. Furthermore, when Atty. Balasabas read the documents, it was because the complainants themselves entrusted the papers to him, thus any disclosure was caused by their own act.